Lula, the Son of Brazil

2010 "Family man. Militant. Hero. Convict. Savior. Romantic. Legend."
4.5| 2h10m| en| More Info
Released: 01 January 2010 Released
Producted By:
Country: Brazil
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The true story of a working class boy who moves to the nation's financial capital at a young age and becomes one the most influential politicians in Brazilian history.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

TinsHeadline Touches You
GazerRise Fantastic!
Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
wega_wide VeryThe film tells the story of the best-evaluated president in Brazilian history and this causes the fury of those who did not vote for him and did not accept defeat in the elections. Unfortunately this president suffered a coup and was cowardly imprisoned without any evidence of crimes he has committed. Great movie!
jgcorrea Lula is the leading and agglutinating symbol of the "cultural revolution" that gave leftists complete hegemonic control of public discussions, to the point that virtually all ideological opposition disappeared from the big picture. To confirm Karl Marx's claim that historical tragedies recur as farces, one should write a play about Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Any student of Marxism who has properly done his homework realizes that, from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, Lula did nothing wrong. Instead. He followed the recipe faithfully, with a fine dialectical sense of objective conditions, moments and opportunities, succeeding in accomplishing what was almost impossible: to save the Latin American communist movement from extinction, and put it in action in a dozen countries. The FARC themselves recognized it emphatically in a letter of thanks sent to the XV anniversary of the Forum of Sao Paulo. Lula himself, conscious of the work accomplished, celebrated his spectacular ideological victory by arguing that Brazil had reached the perfection of democracy: all candidates were left-wing. It is easy to call him a thief, a con man, a devil. But the fact is, such critique is based on a criterion of administrative appropriateness which only applies within the framework of "bourgeois morality." Lula, like Allende in Chile, had to make alliances and concessions - including the vocabulary of "bourgeois honesty" - with a firm intention of throwing them away as soon as possible. He moved amid the ambiguities of an opportunistic conciliation between the strategic demands of the revolutionary movement and the objective interests of his capitalist allies. Not even personal illicit enrichment can be seriously alleged against him by the canons of revolutionary morality. It is an historical fact that all the major stars of the communist cast enriched illicitly - Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Pol-Pot, Allende, Ceaucescu - and it was a tacit norm that they had the obligation to do so, preferably with Swiss accounts, in order to have the means to protect themselves, and eventually restart the revolution in case of failure of any local project. Only Lenin was unable to enjoy a potentate status because some time after the victory of the Revolution, tertiary syphilis, fulfilling its fatal term, reduced him to a human rag. As per Yakov Stanislavovich Ganetsky, Lenin's financial mentor, "the best way to destroy capitalism is for us to become capitalists ourselves." The revolutionary movement has always relied on robbery, fraud, smuggling, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and, in democratic countries where it came to power, assault on public coffers. Lula did not invent anything, he did not innovate at all, he did not change anything, he only demonstrated an extraordinary ability to apply good old tricks. In the court of revolutionary ethics, therefore, not a word can be said against him. His Party (PT) was not a mere case of "corruption" like so many others, but rather a gigantic plan of appropriation of public money in order to give the communist movement full power over the continent.
powzado The story of a man who have never worked in his entire life, purposely cuts his finger off to receive disability retirement. This gangster took advantage of the hope of work-people, destroyed the education, health and economy of the whole nation. The brainwashing caused by the Brazilian political mafia is of such a high degree that it is easy to find people in defense of these white-collar criminals. The film tells the story of what the Brazilian people call "the cancer of the nation". It is clear that the film was overpriced, made with public resources and against the will of the person of good. The movie should be called "The Destruction Of The Brazil" or "The Shame Of A Nation".
fbellermann-1 I just saw "Lula, Son of Brazil" at the Palm Springs Festival. As others noted, the acting (Glória Pires and Milhem Cortaz ) is very good and first timer Ruis Ricardo Diaz does a good job portraying the future president. The cinematography is also up to the usual high standards of Brazilian films. The portrayal of the Northeast, origin of much of the marginalized population in the industrial southern cities is genuine and sympathetic, as it was in previous films ( "CentralStation", and "Behind the Sun" )The fictionalized and tear-jerky story line, however, comes across as the secular sanctification of Lula. One should not forget that the film's makers and some of the actors are intimately connected with the ex-president. Lula's remarkable popularity and executive success should not be cause to whitewash his entire past and portray him as the proletarian saint he appears to be in this movie. The director ( Fábio Barreto ) admitted that national screenings only netted an audience of 1 Million. In a nation of over 200 Million, that stands in contrast to the reported 85% approval rating of the politician at the end of his term. Ms. Barreto, full of class angst, blames this on the "Class A" population, supposedly the only ones interested enough or rich enough to afford the $5 ticket price. This implies a simplified vision of Brazilian society between the haves (Class A) and have-nots (Class C); exactly the sort claptrap ideological rhetoric that prevented Lula from achieving success in previous attempts. Yes, there is a wealthy elite and yes, Brazil does have lingering problems with class divisions, but there is at least a middle "Class B" (growing, in large part, due to the impact of recent Brazilian economic successes). There are worthwhile role models among the class of small entrepreneurs, possibly even in the "Brahmin" ranks of "Class A". The simple truth is, people in Brazil may largely approve of the ex-president, but they are not excited enough about him and his worker's party to invest the time and fork over the money to come and adore him. They'd rather wait until it's out on DVD and available for a buck on the notorious black market. Go and see this film. It has its merits and foreign audiences, in particular, will learn something about Brazil and Lula, but leave your handkerchief in your pocket.